The Promised Land

[stevencarrwork]

As we all know, Moses never entered the Promised Land and it was left to Joshua to do so.

Is Jerusalem part of the Promised Land?

[jpholding]

Got any more vague questions? That one just dropped dead. :hrm:

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 04:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81932#post81932)
jpholding:

Got any more vague questions? That one just dropped dead. :hrm:

You have to admire Holding's brazenness, and his Clintonesque ability not to answer plain questions, even when his supporters are looking on, hoping against hope that he can finally land a blow, in return for all the money they send him.

Is Jerusalem part of the Promised Land?

Too vague, says Holding.

Well, let us start at the start.

Clinton asked what people meant by 'is', so is that word the one where Holding is having problems?

Or is 'Promised Land' too vague for him? Or Jerusalem?

[jpholding]

The question is perfectly clear. Your intent is not. Try again. I just have a hard time grasping why people ask such simple questions, knowing they think they have something up their sleeve which is probably a crab.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 12:26 AM
jpholding:

The question is perfectly clear. Your intent is not. Try again. I just have a hard time grasping why people ask such simple questions, knowing they think they have something up their sleeve which is probably a crab.

So Holding backtracks 180 degrees and denies his previous posting saying the question was vague.

This time he claims the question is too simple to answer, so he is not answering it!

Holding cannot answer even simple questions about the Bible!

Boy, will people on Errancy love that!



He still refuses to answer it, for it is obvious that telling the truth would incriminate his position that the Bible is the word of God.

Holding, is Jerusalem in the Promised Land?

The question is very simple........

[jpholding]

So Holding backtracks 180 degrees and denies his previous posting saying the question was vague.

So Stevie is a literalist who doesn't see the matter of intent included in the question. :huh:

Holding cannot answer even simple questions about the Bible!

Stevie cannot bear having his little schemes exploded in his face. :smile:

He still refuses to answer it, for it is obvious that telling the truth would incriminate his position that the Bible is the word of God.

Got you to admit the scheme at least! :rofl: See? My techniques work perfectly.

Holding, is Jerusalem in the Promised Land?

I dunno. :rofl: My turn to scheme now.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 12:55 AM
jpholding:


He still refuses to answer it, for it is obvious that telling the truth would incriminate his position that the Bible is the word of God.

Got you to admit the scheme at least! :rofl: See? My techniques work perfectly.





Blast. Holding has seen through my scheme to get him to tell the truth.

The guy's way too sharp for me.

[stevencarrwork]

Still no answer from these Christians, who Sherbear says spend hours and hours studying just these questions

[psychopath]

Don't you realize that no one is answering your question because it is obviously meant to bait?

If you're truly interested in hearing the Christian's viewpoint on the issue, you'll come out in the open with your intentions of posing the question. If you do so, I think it is extremely likely that you will receive plenty of Christian responses.

If you don't, then you're really not interested in hearing Christian answers anyway, so why should we give them to you?

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 11:15 PM psychopath:

Don't you realize that no one is answering your question because it is obviously meant to bait?

If you don't, then you're really not interested in hearing Christian answers anyway, so why should we give them to you?


Of course, I know no Christian is interested in answering the question.

Because , as you realise, any honest answer would be used to show that the Bible contradicts itself.

You know that, I know that, Sherbear knows that, Holding knows that, everybody knows that.

That is why they are all struck dumb.

[psychopath]

But my point was that if you just come right out with the supposed contradiction, you will get Christians to respond. I guarantee that if, in your first post, you had simply laid out what you perceive as the contradiction regarding the Promised Land, you would have gotten fruitful and honest replies.

The fact that you don't actually do this hints at the fact that you really aren't interested in hearing any Christian answers.

[Jason Gastrich]

First, I commend J.P. for the amount of patience and respect he can show toward stevencarrwork. :rockon:

Next, I'd like stevencarrwork to define "Promised Land." Since Steven is an unbeliever and not a scholar (that I'm aware of), I'm not sure he knows what the Promise Land is or what he is talking about.

Is this term in the scriptures somewhere? I just did a search in my KJV and NKJV for "promise land" and "promised land" and I can't find it. Please advise.

JG

[Farrell Till]

Yesterday @ 11:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83483#post83483)
psychopath:

Don't you realize that no one is answering your question because it is obviously meant to bait?

If you're truly interested in hearing the Christian's viewpoint on the issue, you'll come out in the open with your intentions of posing the question. If you do so, I think it is extremely likely that you will receive plenty of Christian responses.

Well, I'll try to make my intentions as clear as possible. My opponent (everyone knows who that is) has ridiculed my claim that Joshua's sweep from Kadesh-barnea "even unto Gibeon" would have included the capture of Jerusalem, since Jerusalem was just to the south of Gibeon. However, other scriptures said that the Israelites could not take Jerusalem.

In "reply" to this, my opponent argued that the Israelite sweep from Kadesh-barnea would not have taken them through Jerusalem; hence, Jerusalem was not captured.

In reply to that, I have pointed out that...



Joshua struck all the land of the hill-country, and the south, and the lowlands, and the slopes, and all their kings; he left none remaining, but he utterly destroyed all that breathed as Yahweh the God of Israel commanded[/b] (Josh. 10:40).

Now if you think that all the land and all the kings in the south would not have included Jerusalem, I would like to see you justify that belief with a geographical analysis of the southern Levant, which would show that Jerusalem would have been excluded from those regions. Then I would like for you to explain the following.



Now these are the kings of the land, whom the children of Israel struck and possessed their land beyond the Jordan toward the sunrising, from the valley of Arnon to Mount Hermon and all the Arabah eastward (Josh 12:1).

Now if you think that this didn't necessarily include Jerusalem, please notice that Joshua 12 listed "the kings of the land," whom the Israelites had struck, and verse 10 specifically listed the king of Jerusalem as one of those kings. Jerusalem was a Jebusite city, and verse 9 in this chapter mentioned the Jebusites as one of the nations that the Israelites had "smitten" beyond the Jordan. Why wouldn't all of this add up to the capture of Jerusalem during Joshua's southern campaign?

If in despite of this evidence you are going to claim that Jerusalem was not captured, then Steve Carr's question is very legitimate, because of what was said in Joshua 21:43-45.



43 Thus Yahweh gave to Israel all the land that he swore to their ancestors that he would give them; and having taken possession of it, they settled there. 44 And Yahweh gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their ancestors; not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for Yahweh had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one of all the good promises that Yahweh had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.

So I will ask you Carr's question. Was Jerusalem a part of the land that Yahweh promised to Abraham's seed? If it was, then one of these two conclusions must necessarily follow: (1) The Israelites captured Jerusalem as the verses I explicated indicated. (2) The passage quoted immediately above contains an error, because it says that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land that he had promised and that they possessed it and dwelt in it.[/quote]

It is appropriate then to ask you the same questions that my opponent has repeatedly evaded.



Till:
Are the following statements true or false.

1. The Israelites received ALL the land Yahweh promised them, and they possessed it and dwelt in it.

2. Not a word failed of any good thing which Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel.

3. All that Yahweh had spoken to the house of Israel came to pass.

4. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said that not a man of all their enemies would stand against them.

5. Of the things that Yahweh had spoken to the Israelites, he had said he would drive out the Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Girga[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es, Hivites, Hittites, and Jebusites.

So now it is time for yes or no questions.

1. Was any man of all the enemies of the Israelites able to stand against them?

2. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Canaanites?

3. Did Yahweh drive out before the Israelites all of the Jebusites?

4. Did [i]everything that Yahweh had promised the Israelites come to pass?

Is there anyone here who believes that there are no inconsistencies or contradictions in the OT pertaining to the land promise who will answer these questions? I don't think my opponent will ever address them.



Psychopath:
If you don't, then you're really not interested in hearing Christian answers anyway, so why should we give them to you?

You or someone should try to answer these questions, because some in this forum who presently believe in biblical inerrancy are going to begin to wonder why those who supposedly are qualified biblical apologists keep evading them.

[Jason Gastrich]

lol. Does anybody really deny that God didn't keep the land promise? God gave this land to the Israelites and it belongs to them, now. It was His spiritual gift to them.

The day that someone can prove that I don't have the Holy Spirit in me is the day that someone can prove that God didn't give this land to Israel as their spiritual inheritance.

JG

P.S. If you want to talk about a physical inheritance, then don't forget the law of first mention. The land promise was first mentioned in Exodus 23 (correct me if I'm wrong). Here are two, obvious conditions that God put on the Israelites' physical possession of the land.

vs. 24: Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces.

vs. 33: Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.

Now is about the time when the atheist tries to quote other passages and say they have statements about God singlehandedly removing people from the land. However, they are all prefaced by this statement that includes the Israelites taking part in the removal of the people in their land.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 01:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83594#post83594)
Jason G:

First, I commend J.P. for the amount of patience and respect he can show toward stevencarrwork.

Surely, you are kidding. You can't really think that he has shown "respect" toward stevencarrwork.



Next, I'd like stevencarrwork to define "Promised Land."

The "promised land" would be all the land within the borders that were defined in the land promises that Yahweh made to Abraham and his seed. I have posted several times the passages that gave those borders, but I will post them again for you.



Genesis 15:18 On the same day Yahweh made a covenant with Abram, saying: “To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates—19the Kenites, the Kenezzites, the Kadmonites, 20the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, 21the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girga[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]es, and the Jebusites.”

Exodus 23:31 And I will set your bounds from the Red Sea to the sea, Philistia, and from the desert to the River. For I will deliver the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you.

Deuteronomy 1:6 “Yahweh our God spoke to us in Horeb, saying: ‘You have dwelt long enough at this mountain. 7 Turn and take your journey, and go to the mountains of the Amorites, to all the neighboring places in the plain, in the mountains and in the lowland, in the South and on the seacoast, to the land of the Canaanites and to Lebanon, as far as the great river, the River Euphrates. 8 See, I have set the land before you; go in and possess the land which Yahweh swore to your fathers—to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—to give to them and their descendants after them.’”

Joshua 1:3 Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. 4 From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the River Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory. 5 No man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life; as I was with Moses, so I will be with you. I will not leave you nor forsake you.

These borders would have included Jerusalem, especially since the Salt [Dead] Sea eastward was listed as one of the areas in which the Israelites had defeated the kings of the land in the southern Arabah (Josh. 12:3).



Since Steven is an unbeliever and not a scholar (that I'm aware of), I'm not sure he knows what the Promise Land is or what he is talking about.

Can we be sure that you know?



Is this term in the scriptures somewhere? I just did a search in my KJV and NKJV for "promise land" and "promised land" and I can't find it. Please advise.


We are simply using a theological term that is in almost universal usage to designate the land that Yahweh promised to Abraham and his seed. Many theological terms aren't actually in the Bible. Preterism, trinity, total depravity, etc., etc., etc., aren't in the Bible, but many Christians believe that ideas and concepts that justify these terms are taught in the Bible.

[Farrell Till]

Today @ 04:48 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83784#post83784)
Jason G:

lol. Does anybody really deny that God didn't keep the land promise?

Yes, I deny that the land promise was ever fulfilled. That has been my proposition in several posts in this forum. If you would like to argue that the land promise was fulfilled, I will be glad to oppose you in a debate on the subject.



God gave this land to the Israelites and it belongs to them, now. It was His spiritual gift to them.

Yes, I know that in some places (Joshua 21:43-45 in particular) the claim was made that Yahweh gave to the Israelites all the land he had promised them, but I have shown that this passage contradicts many other biblical texts. My posts are in this forum for you to read.



The day that someone can prove that I don't have the Holy Spirit in me is the day that someone can prove that God didn't give this land to Israel as their spiritual inheritance.

You are asking that others prove a universal negative. When a person asserts, in this case, that he has the "Holy Spirit" in him, he is making an assertion that he has the obligation to prove. No one is obligated to prove that he does not have the HS in him. Can you, for example, prove that Krishna was not the eighth avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu? Do you feel any responsibility at all to prove that he wasn't?

Now if you think you can prove that the land promise to the Israelites was fulfilled, please present to us proof that the Israelites ever occupied the Mediterranean coastal region and the land from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River.



P.S. If you want to talk about a physical inheritance, then don't forget the law of first mention. The land promise was first mentioned in Exodus 23 (correct me if I'm wrong).

Well, you are wrong, because the land promise was given several times in the book of Genesis. See Genesis 13:17; 15:18-21; 17:7-8, among others. You, then, are trying to argue a position that you really haven't the biblical knowledge to defend.



Here are two, obvious conditions that God put on the Israelites' physical possession of the land.

So when did the Israelites ever physically possess the coastal regions of the Levant, which were occupied in biblical times by the Philistines and Phoenicians? When did they possess northern Lebanon to the Euphrates River?



vs. 24: Do not bow down before their gods or worship them or follow their practices. You must demolish them and break their sacred stones to pieces.

vs. 33: Do not let them live in your land, or they will cause you to sin against me, because the worship of their gods will certainly be a snare to you.

Now is about the time when the atheist tries to quote other passages and say they have statements about God singlehandedly removing people from the land. However, they are all prefaced by this statement that includes the Israelites taking part in the removal of the people in their land.

I am prepared to show that there are many biblical passages that say that the Israelites were unable to drive out of the land some of the people that Yahweh said he would drive out before them. If you doubt me, just challenge me, and I'll be glad to repost the various texts on this subject that I have already quoted several times.

[Jason Gastrich]

The conversations between God and Abraham are simply referring to the spiritual inheritance which was immediately granted to Abram (later called Abraham) and his descendants. This is very obvious by the phrase "I give to you." This was a promise in the present tense and it could have only referred to the spiritual.

Gen. 13:15 ". . . all of the land which you see, I give to you and your descendants, forever . . ."

Gen. 15:18 ". . . I have given this land . . ."

Gen. 17:8 ". . . I give to you . . . the land . . . as an everlasting possession . . ."

Another prime indicator of a "spiritual promise" is the word "forever." God give this land, at this moment, to Abram and it was his and his descendants' land, forever. There is no possible way that this referred to physical occupation of the land.

Lastly, you missed the point about the Holy Spirit within me. Since this was a spiritual promise to the Israelites (that you quoted), you would be equally unable to disprove it and the Holy Spirit that is within me.

JG

[psychopath]

I'm interested in responding to your post, Farrell; however, before I do so I need clarification on a point.


However, other scriptures said that the Israelites could not take Jerusalem.

Please clarify your scriptural defense of this statement. It may affect my response. Thanks.

[jpholding]

Awwww. FTill has found a place to occupy himself otherwise and an excuse for rolfing away from the gaffe threads. :rofl:

[Farrell Till]

05-01-2003 @ 06:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=83831#post83831)
psychopath:

I'm interested in responding to your post, Farrell; however, before I do so I need clarification on a point.

Till:
However, other scriptures said that the Israelites could not take Jerusalem.

Psychopath:
Please clarify your scriptural defense of this statement. It may affect my response. Thanks.

Well, golly, gee, Psychopath, I have already quoted several places where the OT says that the Israelites did not take Jerusalem.



Joshua 15:63 63 But the people of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so the Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this day.

One could argue that this text would show that Jerusalem was captured by the Israelites but that they just couldn't drive the Jebusites out of the city, so they had to let the Jebusites live with them, but that requires one to believe that the Israelites, who had had a practice of "utterly destroying" the people they conquered and leaving none of them alive to breathe, somehow were unable to get rid of the Jebusites after Jerusalem had been conquered. Judges 1:21 repeats the claim that somehow the Israelites were able to take Jerusalem but just couldn't drive out the Jebusites.

You (or my opponent) may also wish to argue that this text is in a continuation of the not-yet-taken context, and I would agree with you. However, I have posted several times evidence that the not-yet-taken passage chronologically came after Joshua 21:43, which said that the Israelites had received all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers and that they had possessed it and dwelt in it.

This can be determined by noticing that the not-yet-taken passage was dated when Joshua was "old and advanced in years" (Josh. 13:1). This passage goes on to anticipate how the land will be occupied by the tribes after all of the land has been taken. However, this section strangely concludes with the claim in 21:43 that the Israelites had taken, possessed, and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised them, even though it began with the claim that "much land remained to be possessed."

This is an example of how written texts can be inconsistent within the same context, a fact that I am familiar with from having taught college writing classes, but in this case, there is a widely recognized reason for this inconsistency. Some scholars see Joshua 21:43-45 as an addition to the text by the Deuteronomic writer, who wanted to present his view that Yahweh had kept all of the details of his land promise, but I am sure that this is a critical view that you will not share.

At any rate, time passes after Joshua 21:43-45 until chapter 23 begins with this statement about Joshua's age.



Joshua 23:1 A long time afterward, when Yahweh had given rest to Israel from all their enemies all around, and Joshua was old and well advanced in years, 2 Joshua summoned all Israel, their elders and heads, their judges and officers, and said to them, "I am now old and well advanced in years; 3 and you have seen all that Yahweh your God has done to all these nations for your sake, for it is Yahweh your God who has fought for you.

The text goes on to explain that Yahweh would thrust out before the Israelites the nations that had not yet been taken. This passage, however, is also inconsistent, because verses 4-8 spoke of the nations that had yet to be driven out, and then said that "no man has stood before you unto this day" (v:9). No man had stood before the Israelites until "this day," yet some of the nations had not been driven out. This is the kind of confusion that you will encounter if you take the time to really research the land-promise issue. My opponent has obviously not put much time into such research, or he would see signs in Joshua and Judges that they are patchworks of different traditions.

At any rate, the situation is this. When Joshua was old and advanced in years, Yahweh told him that "much land" remained to be possessed, but eight chapters later, the writer claimed that the Israelites had taken, possessed, and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised to their ancestors. After this was said, "a long time passed," and Joshua was "old and advanced in years." Hence, he must not have been "old and advanced in years" when it was said that the Israelites had taken and possessed all of the land Yahweh had promised them. Chronologically, then, Joshua 21:43-45 (all the land had been taken and possessed) would have preceded the not-yet-taken text, which was written when Joshua was "old and advanced in years."

There is a lot of confusion here, so much so that one is being rather foolish when he tries to argue that there are no inconsistencies in the land-promise texts. At any rate, I have presented a logical argument many times that necessitates the conclusion that the Israelites could not have received, possessed, and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers unless they had also possessed and dwelt in Jerusalem. This follows from the simple fact that the borders of the land that Yahweh promised Abraham's seed were clearly defined in the OT. That land would include all of Canaan (Gen. 17:8), from the river of Egypt to the Euphrates River (Gen. 15:18), and from the wilderness [of Sinai] to Lebanon and to the Great (Mediterranean) Sea at the going down of the sun (Josh. 1:3-4). Since this area would have included Jerusalem, the Israelites could not have received, possessed, and dwelt in all of this land (as claimed in Joshua 21:43) unless they had possessed and dwelt in Jerusalem.

If not, why not?

My opponent has argued that Jerusalem was not conquered by the Israelites, but if it wasn't, then there is an error in Joshua 21:43. The OT is actually contradictory on the issue of whether Jerusalem was captured. I contend--and believe that I have sustained this contention--that the language of Joshua 10-11 was inclusive of Jerusalem.



Joshua 10:40 So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel commanded.

Joshua 11:16 16 So Joshua took all that land: the hill country and all the Negeb and all the land of Goshen and the lowland and the Arabah and the hill country of Israel and its lowland....

Jerusalem was located in the hill country of the southern Levant, so to argue that Joshua took all of the hill country and utterly destroyed all that breathed there but didn't take Jerusalem is a position that cannot be defended. Besides its being an indefensible position, it creates an inconsistency with Joshua 21:43, which my opponent has repeatedly refused to explain.

So if you intend to jump into this fray, you should begin by explaining how the Israelites could have received, possessed, and dwelt in all the land that Yahweh had promised their fathers without having also taken and possessed Jerusalem. Judges 1:8 claims that Judah took Jerusalem after Joshua was dead (1:1), but if the Israelites did not take Jerusalem till after Joshua was dead, then by necessity they had not received, possessed, and dwelt in all the land Yahweh had promised them while Joshua was still alive. Futhermore, the context in which the capture of Jerusalem in Judges appears shows clear signs of being a description of the same battles described in Joshua 10-12 that happened while Joshua was still alive, because the writer(s) of Judges described conquests in "the hill country" and "the South," just as the writer(s) of Joshua had done. The text in Judges claimed that Jerusalem was captured.



Judges 1:8 Then the people of Judah fought against Jerusalem and took it. They put it to the sword and set the city on fire. 9 Afterward the people of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites who lived in the hill country, in the Negeb, and in the lowland.

However, the description of battles that followed these verses was strikingly similar to those recorded in Joshua 10-12 where it was claimed that Joshua took the "hill country" and the "lowland." That these two passages probably represented different traditions is evident from the fact that Judges named some of the same cities and territories that were mentioned in the Israelite conquests under Joshua's leadership.



Judges 1:10 Judah went against the Canaanites who lived in Hebron (the name of Hebron was formerly Kiriath-arba); and they defeated Sheshai and Ahiman and Talmai. 11 From there they went against the inhabitants of Debir (the name of Debir was formerly Kiriath-sepher).

The defeat of Hebron and Debir was described in Joshua 10.



Joshua 10:36 Then Joshua went up with all Israel from Eglon to Hebron; they assaulted it, 37 and took it, and struck it with the edge of the sword, and its king and its towns, and every person in it; he left no one remaining, just as he had done to Eglon, [/b]and utterly destroyed it with every person in it.[/b] 38 Then Joshua, with all Israel, turned back to Debir and assaulted it, 39 and he took it with its king and all its towns; they struck them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed every person in it; he left no one remaining; just as he had done to Hebron, and, as he had done to Libnah and its king, so he did to Debir and its king.

That this passage was describing the same military campaigns as the text in Judges 1 is further evident from the very next verse, which located these battles in the "hill country" and "the lowland," just as Judges 1 did.



40 So Joshua defeated the whole land, the hill country and the Negeb and the lowland and the slopes, and all their kings; he left no one remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as Yahweh God of Israel commanded.

So when these parallel texts are fully considered, one is left with little alternative to the conclusion that Joshua 10-12 and Judges 1 were descriptions of the same battles. One tradition was that Joshua had conquered these places; the other was that Judah had conquered them after Joshua was dead. To believe that they are descriptions of separate battles, one would have to argue that Joshua "utterly destroyed" all the people in Hebron and Debir and left nothing alive to breathe, but somehow after the utter destruction of the entire populations in these places, Hebron and Debir recovered a population within a relatively short time that required Judah to capture them again. How could they have managed such a recovery? Are we to believe that Joshua massacred the entire populations of these cities but left them unoccupied so that non-Israelites were able to come into these places in such numbers that Judah had to go in and conquer them again after Joshua was dead?

This is just one example of the many follies that one must defend in order to cling to a belief in biblical inerrancy.

[jpholding]

Gee. Why won't FTill come to Gaffe Thread 2 where I begin my answers to all these pressing questions of his? :rofl: Instead he reposts arguments already defeated in other threads like Gaffe Thread 1.

Is this man transparent or what?